Why Is Fyodor Dostoevsky The Possessed Controversial?

Fyodor Dostoevsky from 'Bungou Stray Dogs' is one of those characters that just pulls you in with his enigmatic aura and layered personality. The way he’s depicted as both a genius and a villain creates a fascinating duality. His intelligence is palpable, and it’s what sets him apart from many other characters in the series. The strategic maneuvers he employs not only showcase his mental prowess but also make you question the morality of his actions. There’s something almost hypnotic about how he manages to manipulate events around him like a puppet master, which keeps the tension alive and always makes you want to see what he’ll do next. What adds depth to Fyodor is his philosophical outlook on life and fate. He often reflects on deep existential themes, which resonates with me as someone who's always wandering down those mental rabbit holes. His discussions about the nature of humanity, freedom, and consciousness make him feel more than just a villain; he's a thinker. It’s like he’s inviting us to ponder the darker sides of intellect and how it can be wielded for either good or evil, creating a moral ambiguity that's quite gripping. I find myself often wondering what drives him—what really makes someone so compelled to outsmart everyone else in such a cold manner? That complexity is what really hooks me. Moreover, his relationship with the other characters, particularly how he engages with the members of the Armed Detective Agency, adds another layer of intrigue. There’s a dance of wits between him and his adversaries, and I can’t help but feel a mix of admiration and fear. It's like he embodies the ultimate dark knight, constantly challenging the heroes, yet there's almost a twisted respect in how he operates. To think of a character that can blend intellect, philosophical skepticism, and sheer charisma into one is nothing short of brilliant!

Okay, this is one of my favorite geeky breakdowns to do — I’ll gush a little before diving in. In 'Bungo Stray Dogs' Dazai’s hallmark is his ability called 'No Longer Human.' It’s gloriously simple on paper: when he makes skin-to-skin contact with someone, any supernatural ability they have is nullified. That’s why he’s always hugging people in the strangest moments — tactically disarming showy opponents, turning ability-focused fights into plain-old human confrontations. It doesn’t make him physically invincible; it just removes that powered variable, which he pairs with a sharp brain and weirdly calm timing. He’s more of a chess player than a brawler — he cancels the rook before the rest of the board collapses. Fyodor, on the other hand, carries the aura of a slow-moving disaster. His ability, named 'Crime and Punishment,' is presented as lethal and inscrutable: it can produce outright deaths and catastrophic outcomes, and it’s been used in ways that show it can breach defenses most others rely on. The canon leans into mystery — we see the consequences and the long, surgical planning he uses, more than a blow-by-blow explanation of a mechanic. He feels like fate wearing a suit: he engineers people and events, and his power amplifies that by having direct, often fatal, results. Where Dazai removes other people’s rules, Fyodor rewrites the rules around life and death. I love how these two contrast — one cancels, the other corrodes, and both are terrifying in different ways.

I get a little excited talking about translations, because with a book like 'Poor Folk' the translator can completely change how the characters breathe on the page. For a first-time reader who wants something that reads smoothly and still carries the old-fashioned charm, Constance Garnett's translation is a classic gateway. It can feel a little Victorian in tone, but that sometimes helps convey the social distance and pathos between the protagonists. Her prose is readable and familiar to many English-language Dostoevsky readers. If you care more about modern clarity and preserving Russian rhythms, I’d lean toward the Pevear and Volokhonsky version. Their translations tend to preserve sentence structure and idiosyncrasies of speech, which matters in an epistolary novel where voice equals character. David Magarshack’s work sits somewhere between Garnett and Pevear & Volokhonsky—often praised for literary warmth. My practical tip: sample the opening letters of two editions side by side (library, preview, or bookstore) and see which voice moves you. Also look for editions with helpful notes or introductions explaining social context and diminutives—those little Russian touches make a huge difference to enjoyment.

Flipping through the cramped, earnest letters that make up 'Poor Folk' always feels like overhearing two people trying to keep each other alive with words. The epistolary form turns Dostoevsky's social critique into something intimate: you get the texture of poverty not as abstract description but as a sequence of small, pin-prick moments — missed dinners, embarrassed silences, the slow reshaping of dignity. Through Makar Devushkin's handwriting voice I sense clumsy affection and self-deception; Varvara's replies reveal education, pride, and the cramped freedom she carves out in sentences. Because the novel is all correspondence, irony and dramatic tension live in what is left unsaid. Readers fill the gaps between letters, and that act of filling makes us complicit: we judge Makar, we forgive him, we watch him misread signals. The form also forces a double vision — an outside social panorama emerges as the private collapses into it. Letters act like mirrors and windows at once, reflecting characters' inner worlds and exposing the grinding social machinery that shapes them. So, the letters do more than tell a plot; they sculpt empathy. They make class visible at the level of tone, syntax, and omission, and they invite us to listen with that peculiar closeness you only get when someone writes to you. It leaves me feeling both humbled and slightly haunted every time I read it.

I’ve always been pulled into Dostoevsky’s narrators like someone following the smell of strong coffee down a rainy street. If you want the purest example of unreliability, start with 'Notes from Underground' — the narrator is practically a manifesto of contradiction, proudly irrational and painfully self-aware, so you can’t trust a word he says without suspecting it’s either performative or defensive. After that, 'White Nights' is a smaller, gentler kind of unreliability: a lonely romantic who embellishes memory and softens facts to make his own life into a story. Those two read like personal confessions that bend truth to emotion. For larger novels, I watch how Dostoevsky wiggles the camera. 'The Gambler' is first-person and colored by obsession and shame; gambling skews perception, so the narrator’s timeline and motives often wobble. In 'Crime and Punishment' the perspective isn’t strictly first-person, but the focalization dips so deeply into Raskolnikov’s psyche that the narration adopts his fevered logic and moral confusion — that makes us question how much is objective fact versus mental distortion. Similarly, 'The Brothers Karamazov' isn’t a single unreliable narrator, but it’s full of competing, biased accounts and testimony: courtroom scenes, family stories, confessions that are much more about identity than truth. Beyond those, I’d add 'The Adolescent' (sometimes called 'A Raw Youth') and 'The House of the Dead' to the list of works with strong subjectivity; memory, shame, and self-fashioning shape how events are presented. If you like spotting rhetorical slips and narrative self-sabotage, re-read passages aloud — it’s wild how often Dostoevsky signals unreliability by letting characters contradict themselves mid-paragraph. Also, different translations emphasize different tones, so comparing versions can be fun and revealing.

There’s something almost surgical in how Dostoevsky teases apart conscience and crime. When I sit by a window with rain on the glass and 'Crime and Punishment' on my lap, Raskolnikov’s inner debates feel less like plot devices and more like living, breathing moral experiments. Dostoevsky doesn’t hand you a villain to point at; he hands you a human being tangled in ideas, circumstances, pride, and desperation, and then watches them make choices that don’t resolve neatly. Across his work — from 'Notes from Underground' to 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'Demons' — he uses unreliable interior monologues, confession-like episodes, and clashing voices to create moral ambiguity. The narrator in 'Notes from Underground' is bitter and self-aware in ways that make you both pity him and cringe; you never know whether to side with his arguments or judge him for hiding behind them. In 'The Brothers Karamazov', debates about God, justice, and free will are embodied in characters rather than abstract essays: Ivan’s intellectual rebellion, Alyosha’s spiritual gentleness, and Dmitri’s chaotic passion all blur the lines between sin and sincerity. What I love is that Dostoevsky rarely gives simple moral exoneration or condemnation. Redemption often arrives slowly and awkwardly — via suffering, confession, ties of love like Sonya’s compassion, or bitter lessons learned. He also shows how social forces and ideology can warp morality, as in 'Demons', where political fanaticism produces moral ruins. Reading him makes me listen for uncomfortable counter-voices in my own judgments, and that uneasy, complex resonance is why his portrayals of moral ambiguity still feel urgent and alive.

If you're after something bite-sized from Dostoevsky that still punches emotionally, there are a few gems that won't bog you down. I often grab one of these on a lazy Sunday with coffee and they fit perfectly between episodes or errands. Start with 'White Nights' — it's a tender little novella, dreamy and short (like a long short story). It captures loneliness and romantic longing in just a handful of chapters, and you can finish it in an evening. 'Notes from Underground' is denser but still short: more philosophically jagged, it's a sharp, cranky monologue that lays the groundwork for a lot of Dostoevsky's later ideas. For something plot-driven and brisk, 'The Gambler' reads like a novella-meets-thriller about obsession; it's a punchy read, partly inspired by Dostoevsky's own life, so it feels immediate. If you like micro-fiction, hunt down 'The Meek One' and 'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man' — both are compact and weird in delicious ways. Translators matter: I've leaned toward Pevear & Volokhonsky for clarity and mood, but Constance Garnett is classic and often easy to find. For pacing, read 'White Nights' when you want melancholy, 'Notes from Underground' when you want to wrestle with ideas, and 'The Gambler' when you crave plot tension. Personally, finishing one of these gives me the full Dostoevsky vibe without committing to a doorstop novel, and sometimes that's exactly what I need.

Whenever I sit down with Dostoevsky I end up thinking in seasons — some books feel like a short storm, others like a long winter. For TV, the ones that map most naturally are 'Crime and Punishment', 'The Brothers Karamazov', and 'Demons' (also known as 'The Possessed'). 'Crime and Punishment' already has that taut moral-thriller spine: a crime, the chase, the psychological unraveling. On screen you can stretch the investigation, the courtships, and Raskolnikov’s inner turmoil across episodes and use voiceover or visual motifs to externalize his conscience. It’s a compact novel that rewards a limited-series approach with room for side characters to breathe. 'The Brothers Karamazov' screams epic miniseries in the best way — multiple siblings, theological debates, courtroom drama, love triangles, and village politics. A well-cast ensemble can carry the philosophical weight without making it feel like a lecture; pace matters, and TV lets you linger on the relationships that are the emotional core. 'Demons' translates into a feverish political thriller, almost a precursor to modern conspiracy dramas. Its network of radicals, betrayals, and ideological mania would make for addictive serialized television. Less obvious but intriguing: 'Notes from Underground' makes a brilliant experimental limited run if you lean into unreliable narration and fractured timelines, while 'The Idiot' could be a slow-burn character study about innocence in a corrupt society. In short, choose books with clear external conflicts and strong ensembles for long-form TV, and use creative devices — modern transposition, voiceover, fragmented editing — to handle Dostoevsky’s interiority. I still get chills picturing a rainy, late-night scene of Raskolnikov pacing, headphones on, thinking aloud — that’s the kind of intimate TV I want to watch.